Originally Posted by Bassmankr
No need to re-invent the wheel despite Grant money or school paper to write.
I disagree with this statement, but not the essence of both your posts.
Reinventing the wheel is the most important part of this technological revolution, but it's not enough to "stand on the shoulders of giants" (including the OP) when your goal is to fly.
Here are some comments of mine:
1.) HPC is equal to "High Performance Computing". In layman terms this means, that you have a computer, which isn't wasting resources on unnecessary services and which utilizes the best technology to do so. The newest algorithms ran on a 30 year old Apple II can outperform today's world's fastest super-computer. Ponder this for a while. In fact, that's all you have to really think about, when it comes to "HPC".
2.) You claim to have access to the world's fastest networking technology. I doubt that, because I would know if that were the case. Laser-based connections between "CPU-layers" are just in their infancy, so I doubt you have years of expertise working on implementations.
I guess we are back to network cards, copper and wireless then, huh?
3.) Ask yourself this very tricky question: is there a problem that requires parallel computing and can't be solved by simply utilizing faster sequential computing? Even parallel sorting algorithms run in steps.
If you can show me such a problem, you will be the first.
HPC computing is so popular because of the availability of cheap hardware AND because we've realized that we can make cheaper cores, but we can't make the cores run faster without paying much more for it and hitting the ceiling. We are having 48-core systems now, because we can run them at 2-3GHz and can not run a single core at 500GHz without it turning into a Black Hole. of
4.) Why would I need networking when I can use RAM-based drives NOW and for cheap? If I buy 10 of the fastest SSDs on the market, buy a 12 port PCI card, I will probably hit the area of 6GB of data-read per second. That's roughly THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND TRACKS OF AUDIO at 16/44.1 kHz.
Again, that's roughly 37,000 tracks of audio at 16/44.1 kHz. SIMULTANEOUSLY
That's too expensive for you for 30+ THOUSANDS of tracks? All the SSDs and the card, etc...? Buy yourself 2SSDs and 64GB of RAM and create a 32GB RAM-drive, which with new RAM modules will allow you to roughly meet the 6GB/s of data-read above. For $750. On a standard mainboard, using a standard CPU, standard RAM modules, standard HDs.
Even at 32bit/384kHz, you will have enough of sound sources at your fingertips.
What was that proverb again about blind lumberjacks and not seeing woods for trees?
5.) You ask yourself, if you understand music and sound. But the question is: does your guitar understand what flamenco music is? No? Then ponder this for a while. Said guitar is made to sound like a flamenco guitar, or to be played like a flamenco guitar or the sample library utilizes some clever layering so that you are able to play it on your keyboard like a flamenco guitar. Or you are simply recording a flamenco guitarist played by a guitarist who knows what flamenco sounds like. You see how complicated such a simple undertaking is? And that's the easy part, trust me.
The hard one is the following: does your DAW understand what it does?
Does it understand MUSIC?
The answer is clearly NO. Solve that problem and stop talking about reinventing the wheel, while having a rocket in mind and flying to the Moon.
And that's what you need to do, instead of working on "alternatives to a circular wheel design".
6.) All of that is comparable to Newton's undertaking of creating the mathematics necessary to "harmonize" the orbits of the planets back in the 17th century. He reached his limits (because lets face it, even Newton (unlike Tesla) wasn't ahead of his time) and then started to talk about God and Intelligent Design, because he couldn't imagine how something so complicated could be solved. As we know today, Archimedes already developed a lot of the math Newton ended up re-creating almost 2,000 years later. But Newton couldn't have known that, because Archimedes' works were rediscovered in the 20th century. Re-inventing the wheel again (this time, not on purpose).
What I mean by this? Two things: for one, look into the past. There are already designs based around creating music, where the software understands the theory of what is played and what will be played in the future. Be it scales, rhytms or effects.
Number two: I used the example of Newton, because the problems he was dealing with and him claiming it was unsolvable and "God's work" ended up being solved easily just a couple of decades later. So why did Newton talk this nonsense? Because he couldn't believe, that he hit the ceiling of his abilities. So don't mistake your limits for the limits of the world.
And realize, that you are basically trying to create a Deus ex Machina.
Speaking of "celestial harmony", a field once taught at a single university at the beginning of the 20th century. "CELE(stial har)MONY" ended up being the company of a certain German music enthusiast, which brought us Melodyne. And lately, DNA, or the algorithm to be able to reconstruct music from its basic building blocks (hence the convenient abbreviation). "Reductionist re-synthesis" could be the name of the field you have to master next, if it existed. Maybe the man in question at Celemony will help? Who knows?!
7.) Lucky number 7. The Reason for Live is Logic.
Sorry, couldn't stop myself. Seriously though: music makes us happy. Making music makes us happy. For different reasons, given different scenarios.
Sometimes you sit there, alone, your guitar in your hands or a keyboard or a set of drums. And you start to make music. You know what the problem is? No matter the software, you will always be a one-man-band. If you want to revolutionize making music, then you have to change the process.
And to change it, your DAW must understand music. And it must be able to ACCOMPANY you, while you play. You can be the guitarist, the vocalist, the keyboardist, the drummer.........or the conductor. But where is THE BAND that can play along, when the only person in front of the computer is YOU?
That's one part of the problem and not really something you will be able to solve BY YOURSELF.
The other problem (and the one which should be solved first) is; why can't my DAW understand my REAL BAND? Why doesn't a DAW exist which lets me and my three other friends grab their instruments AND/OR tablets and choose their instruments and we jam together, while the "main DAW" communicates, records, manipulates and creates the audio output?
A DAW should be able to do that. Let PEOPLE (read: plural) make MUSIC (read: understand what's going on and create the sound sources for it) TOGETHER (read: simultaneously, while conducting the session).
That's it for now.
As you can clearly see, the problems are not really hardware-based. Or the problems that exist can be easily solved using the right hardware and the right approaches.
The challenges to REALLY give musicians the freedom to create music the way they imagine it, are almost exclusively in the "reinventing the wheel" arena of ideas and software.